| Bruce Sterling on Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:47:04 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Ken's Taking No Prisoners |
...deep dark sticky roots of the California Ideology...
bruces
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/19/counterculture-and-the-tech-
revolution/
Counterculture and the Tech Revolution
By RU Sirius
November 19th, 2006
Back in the day, when people were still asking me to explain "Mondo
2000," I used to tell them that we were doing this psychedelic
counterculture magazine called "High Frontiers" in the mid-1980s and
we were shocked ? just shocked ? when we were befriended by the
Silicon Valley elite. Suddenly, we found ourselves at parties where
some of the major software and hardware designers of those early days
were hanging out with NASA scientists, quantum physicists, hippies
and lefty radicals, artists, libertarians, and your general motley
assortment of smart types.
I was being a bit disingenuous when I made these comments. "High
Frontiers" already had a tech/science bias, largely because we'd been
influenced by the "Leary-Wilson paradigm." So we were technologically
progressive tripsters. I'd also followed Stewart Brand's work with
interest through the years.
The connection between the creators of the driving engine of the
contemporary global economy, and the countercultural attitudes that
were popular among young people during the 1960s and 70s was sort of
a given within the cultural milieu we ("High Frontiers/Mondo 2000")
found ourselves immersed in as the 1980s spilled into the 90s.
Everybody was "experienced." Everybody was suspicious of state and
corporate authority ? even those who owned corporations. People
casually recalled hanging out with Leary, or The Grateful Dead, or
Ken Kesey, or Abbie Hoffman. You get the picture.
But these upcoming designers of the future were not prone towards
lots of public hand waving about their "sex, drugs and question
authority" roots. After all, most of them were seeking venture
capital and they were selling their toys and tools to ordinary Reagan-
Bush era consumers. There was little or no percentage in trying to
tell the public, "Oh, by the way. All this stuff? This is how the
counterculture now plans to change the world."
And while there has been plenty of implicit ? and even some explicit
? talk throughout the years about these associations, no one really
tried to trace the connections until 2005, when John Markoff
published What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped
the Personal Computer.
Markoff's narrative revolved largely around the figures of Douglas
Engelbart and Stewart Brand. His book, according to my May 2005
conversation with him on the NeoFiles podcast, covered "the
intersection or convergence of two cultures around the Stanford
campus in Palo Alto, California throughout the 1960s. One was a
psychedelic counterculture and the other was the anti-war movement;
and then you have the beginnings of computer technology intersecting
them both."
Engelbart, in contrast to the mainstream in computer science back
then, started thinking about computers as something that could
augment and expand the capacity of the human mind. At the same time,
another Palo Alto group was researching LSD as a tool for augmenting
and expanding the capacity of the human mind. And then, along came
the whole anti-war, anti-establishment movement of the sixties and
all these tendencies become increasingly tangled as a "people's"
computing culture evolves in and around the San Francisco Bay Area.
What the Dormouse Said is a marvelous read that gives names and faces
to an interesting dynamic that helped give birth to the PC. The story
is mostly localized in Palo Alto in Silicon Valley, and it?s largely
about how connections were made. In this sense, it's a story that is
as much based on proximity in physical space and time, as it is a
story about the evolution of the cultural ideas that might be
associated with that word: "counterculture."
Fred Turner's From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the
Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism digs more
deeply into how the seeds of a certain view of how the world works
(cybernetics) was planted into the emerging 60s counterculture
largely through the person of Stewart Brand, and how that seed has
succeeded ? and how it has continued to exfoliate in new and
unexpected ways. While Markoff's book blew the cultural lid off of a
partly-suppressed truth ? that computer culture was deeply rooted in
psychedelic counterculture ? Turner's book takes a broader sweep and
raises difficult questions about the ideological assumptions that
undergird our counterculturally-inflected technoculture. They?re both
wonderful reads, but Turner's book is both more difficult and
ultimately more rewarding.
What Turner does in From Counterculture to Cyberculture is trace an
arc that starts with the very mainstream American interest in
cybernetics (particularly within the military) and shows how that
implicit interest in self-regulating systems leads directly into the
hippie Bible, the "Whole Earth Catalog" and eventually brings forth a
digital culture that distributes computing power to (many of) the
people, and which takes on a sort-of mystical significance as an
informational "global brain." And then, towards the book's
conclusion, he raises some unpleasant memories, as Brand?s digital
countercultural elite engages in quasi-meaningful socio-political
intercourse with Newt Gingrich?s Progress and Freedom Foundation and
other elements of the mid-90s "Republican Revolution."
While I welcome Turner?s critical vision, I must say honestly that,
although I was repulsed by the Gingrich alliance and by much of the
corporate rhetoric that emerged, at least in part, out of Brand's
digital elitist clan ? I think Brand?s tactics were essentially
correct. Turner implies that valuable social change is more likely to
happen through political activism than through the invention and
distribution of tools and through the whole systems approach that is
implicit in that activity. But I think that the internet has ?
palpably ? been much more successful in changing lives than 40 years
of left oppositional activism has been.
For one example out of thousands, the only reason the means of
communication that shapes our cultural and political zeitgeist isn't
COMPLETELY locked down by powerful media corporations is the work
that these politically ambiguous freaks have accomplished over the
past 40 years.
In other words, oppositional activism would be even more occult ?
more hidden from view ? today if not for networks built by hippie
types who were not averse to working with DARPA and with big
corporations. The world is a complex place.
In some ways, Turner's critique of cyber-counterculture is similar to
Thomas Frank's criticism of urban hipster counterculture in his
influential book, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture,
Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism. It, in essence,
portrays hipsterism as a phenomenon easily transformed into a
titillating, attractive, libertine whore for big business.
Frank argues that American businesses felt stultified by the
conformism of the American 50s and needed a more expansive,
experimental, individualistic consumer base that would be motivated
by the frequent changes in what?s hip and who would desire a wider
variety of products. So the hippie culture, despite its implied
critique of consumerism that they inherited from the beats, actually
energized consumer capitalism and, through advertising and mainstream
media, the business world amplified the rebellious message of sixties
youth counterculture, encouraging consumers to "join the Dodge
rebellion" and "live for today."
These books by Frank and Turner raise interesting questions and
challenge most folks' usual assumptions about the counterculture. But
one of the interesting questions that might be raised in response to
these critiques is, "So what?"
In my own book, Counterculture Through the Ages: From Abraham to Acid
House (with Dan Joy), on counterculture as a sort of perennial
historical phenomenon, I identify counterculturalism with the
continual emergence of individuals and groups who transgress some of
the taboos of a particular tribe or religion or era in a way that
pushes back boundaries around thoughts and behaviors in ways that
lead to greater creativity, greater enjoyment of life, freedom of
thought, spiritual heterodoxy, sexual liberties, and so forth. In
this context, one might ask if counterculture should necessarily be
judged by whether it effectively opposes capitalism or capitalism's
excesses. Perhaps, but complex arguments can be made either way, or
more to the point, NEITHER way, since any countercultural resistance
is unlikely to follow a straight line ? it is unlikely to reliably
line up on one side or another.
These reflections may not be directly related to one of Turner's
concerns: that an elite group of white guys have decided how to
change the world. On the other hand, one might also ask how much
direct influence the last decade's digerati still has. The "ruling
class" in the digital era is an ever-shifting target; all those kids
using Google, YouTube, the social networks, etc., don't know John
Brockman from John Barlow, but a good handful of them certainly know
Ze Frank from Amanda Congdon.
Meanwhile, the corporate digital powers seem to be pleased to have an
ally in the new Democratic Speaker of the House. And that may be the
coolest thing about the world that Stewart Brand and his cohorts have
helped to inspire. In the 21st Century, the more things change, the
more things change.
I interviewed Fred Turner recently on NeoFiles?
To listen to the full interview in MP3, click here.
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/19/counterculture-and-the-tech-
revolution/
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net